Chapter 10: Germanic
Hansen, Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard; Kroonen, Guus
Published in: The Indo-European languages
Publication date: 2021
Document version Peer reviewed version
Citation for published version (APA): Hansen, B. S. S., & Kroonen, G. (Accepted/In press). Chapter 10: Germanic. In T. Olander (Ed.), The Indo- European languages: New perspectives on a language family Cambridge University Press.
Download date: 26. sep.. 2021 9. Germanic
Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen University of Copenhagen
Guus Kroonen Leiden University & University of Copenhagen
1 Introduction
Germanic languages are spoken by about 500 million native speakers. It is a medium- large subgroup of the Indo-European language family and owes much of its current distribution to the relatively recent expansion of English. From a historical perspective, notable old Germanic languages were Gothic, Old Norse, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Old Franconian (poorly attested) and Old High German (Bousquette & Salmons 2017: 387–8). Gothic, mainly known from a 4th- century bible translation, continued to be spoken in a local variant in Crimea until the late 18th century but subsequently went extinct (Nielsen 1981: 283–8). The continu- ants of Old Saxon survive marginally in largely moribund pockets of Low German Platt. The Frisian languages are still spoken in northern Germany and the Dutch prov- ince of Fryslân, but the use of these languages is in decline (Versloot 2020). English and German are the largest Germanic languages by numbers of speakers; third comes Dutch, which has descended from Low Franconian. The Nordic languages (Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, Elfdalian, Gutnish and Danish), which have descended from different varieties of Old Norse, cover the most extensive territory within Europe (Henriksen & van der Auwera 1994). Even prior to the appearance of these languages in the region from the 4th to the 12th century, we have attestations of Germanic languages in the region. Runic inscrip- tions in a language that we may label Early Runic1 appear in mainly northern Germany, Denmark and southern Sweden from the 2nd century onwards, and even before that, we have one inscription on a 4th-century-BCE bronze helmet, the Negau B helmet, unearthed in Slovenia. This inscription, which is in a northern Etruscan alphabet and reads hariχastiteiwa, constitutes our earliest evidence of Germanic, at least if we fol- low Markey (2001) in interpreting it as ‘Harigast the priest’ with harigast to be iden- tified as the Germanic words for ‘army’ and ‘guest’ and teiwa as a linguistic precursor
1 This language probably represents some stage of Primitive Germanic with minor dialectal differences, i.e., an umbrella term for Proto-Norse, the language of the early Anglo-Frisian runic inscriptions, the early continental runic inscriptions and the few so-called East Ger- manic runic inscriptions from southeastern Europe. 2 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen of the Nordic theonym Týr.2 This inscription thus constitutes an incontrovertible ter- minus ante quem for a couple of the linguistic features that define Germanic (see §2).
2 Evidence for the Germanic branch
The Negau B helmet inscription (see §1) displays the sound changes of PIE *k, *gʰ and *d to h, ɣ and t, respectively, and of PIE *o to a. These features are shared by all Ger- manic languages along with several other features that all contribute to incontrovert- ibly defining these particular languages as descending from a common predecessor, Proto-Germanic. This in turn confirms the existence of a Germanic branch. In this section, we shall attempt to list the most important diagnostic features of Germanic within the realms of phonology, morphosyntax and lexicon.
2.1 Phonology
As noted by Ringe (2017: 113–27, 147–50 and ch. 4 §XX), all Germanic languages dis- play reflexes of the outputs of the following phonological innovations.3 Three of these, no. 1, 4 and 5, are frequently said to constitute the most striking hallmark of the Ger- manic languages, i.e., “what to a large extent defines Germanic” (Kroonen 2013: xxvii). 1. Rask/Grimm’s Law I: PIE *p t ḱ/k kʷ > fricatives *f þ h hw unless an obstruent immediately preceded, e.g. Goth. fadar ‘father’ ~ Skt. pita ́, Gr. πατήρ; Goth. þreis ‘three’ ~ Skt. tráyaḥ, Gr. τρεῖς, Lat. trēs. 2. Verner’s Law: *f θ s x xw (some of which have arisen through no. 1) > *β ð z ɣ ɣw if not word-initial, if not adjacent to a voiceless sound, and if the last preceding syllable nucleus was not accented; e.g. Goth. fadar ‘father’ (PGmc. *faðer- < PIE *ph₂tér-) ~ Goth. broþar ‘brother’ (< PGmc. *brōþer- < PIE *bʰréh₂ter-). 3. Kluge’s Law: PIE *-Pn- -Tn- -Kn- > *-bb- -dd- -gg- (Kluge 1844; Lühr 1982; Kroonen 2011), e.g. PGmc. *rikkī- (MoG Ricke ‘female roe deer’), derived from PGmc. *rai- han- (OE rā, OHG rēho ‘roe deer’) ~ Lat. (h)ircus ‘billy-goat’, W iwrch, Bret. yourc'h ‘roebuck’ < PIE *i̯(o)rḱ- (with metathesis in Germanic). In view of PGmc. *seuni- ‘sight, vision’ (Goth. siuns, OIcel. sjón, OE sīen, OS siun) < *seɣʷni- < PIE *sekʷ-ní-, the occurrence of Kluge’s Law must have postdated no. 2. 4. Rask/Grimm’s Law II: PIE *b d ǵ/g gʷ > *p t k kw (including *bb dd gg > *pp tt kk) (succeeding no. 3), e.g. Goth. twái ‘two’ ~ Skt. dváu, Gr. δύω, Lat. duo; Goth. áukan ‘increase’ ~ Lat. augeō ‘increase’, Lith. áugu ‘grow’. 5. Rask/Grimm’s Law III: PIE *bʰ dʰ ǵʰ/gʰ gʷʰ > fricatives *β ð ɣ ɣw, e.g. OS neƀal ‘fog’, OE nifol ‘dark’ ~ Skt. nábhas- ‘fog’, Gr. νέφος; Goth. daúr ‘door’ ~ Gr. θυρᾱ, Lat. forēs.
2 Alternatively, Must (1957: 55–7) sees a Rhaetic name consisting of Venetic and Etruscan elements in this inscription. 3 Innovations no. 3 and 8 are not mentioned by Ringe (2017). However, we have included them here to demonstrate the full range of the interdependence of these phonological in- novations. The internal sequence of innovations no. 1–5 is disputed. Some adherents of the glottalic theory (e.g. Kortlandt 1991: 3) have Verner’s Law (no. 2) predate both Kluge’s Law (no. 3) and Rask/Grimm’s Law (no. 1, 4 and 5). 9. Germanic 3
6. *β ð ɣ ɣw (arisen through no. 2 and 5) > *b d g gw after homorganic nasals, and *β ð > *b d word-initially, e.g. Goth. bindan ‘to bind’. 7. Shift of stress to the first syllable of the word (succeeding no. 2). 8. Simplification of geminates after heavy syllables, e.g. PGmc. *wīsa- ‘wise’ (OIcel. víss, OHG wīs) < *wīssa- < PIE *u̯ ei̯d-to-; *deupa- ‘deep’ (Goth. diups, OIcel. djúpr, OE dēop) < *deuppa- < PIE *dʰeubʰ-no- ~ Lith. dubùs ‘deep’ < PIE *dʰubʰ-u-. As Ringe (ch. 4) also mentions, the collocation of these innovations reduces the likeli- hood of them having taken place individually in each affected language – and thus the likelihood of these languages not emanating from an immediate, common predeces- sor – to practically zero. However, the list does not confine itself to these seven inno- vations. We may add at least a handful of further innovations, most of which concern the development of the inventory of stressed vowels. Examples include: 1. Merger of post-laryngeal PIE *a o ə > a, e.g. OHG hasō ‘hare’ ~ Skt. śáśa- (< *śása-), OPru. sasins (< PIE *ḱas-); Goth. gasts ‘guest’ ~ Lat. hostis ‘enemy’ (< PIE *gʰos- tis); Goth. fadar ‘father’ ~ Skt. pita ́, Gr. πατήρ (< PIE *ph₂tér-). 2. Merger of post-laryngeal PIE *ā ō > *ā. 3. *ā > *ō (succeeding no. 10),4 e.g. Goth. sokjan /sōkjan/ ‘seek’ ~ Lat. sāgīre; Goth. bloma /blōma/ ‘flower’ ~ Lat. flōs. 4. PIE *r̥ l̥ m̥ n̥ > *ur ul um un), e.g. Goth. baúrgs /burgs/ ‘city’ ~ Av. bərəz- ‘high, hill, mountain’, OIr. brí (brig-) ‘hill’ (< PIE *bʰr̥ǵʰ-); Goth. fulls ‘full’ ~ Skt. pūrṇáḥ, Lith. pìlnas (< PIE *pl̥h₁nós). 5. Holtzmann’s Law: PIE *-i̯- -u̯ - > PGmc. *-jj- -ww- in some conditions.5
2.2 Morphosyntax
Morphosyntax, too, provides a range of compelling evidence that classifies the Ger- manic languages as belonging to a separate branch. A morphological innovation that may count as one of the defining hallmarks of Germanic is the rise of its verbal system. All old Germanic languages share a verbal system that consists of three subsystems.6 • ablauting “strong verbs” with a present stem predominantly continuing the Proto- Indo-European thematic presents and a preterite stem continuing the Proto-Indo- European perfect, e.g. Goth. bind-an ‘bind’, band ‘I/he bound’, bund-um ‘we bound’
4 Together with a few other loanword relations, the Gothic loanword rumoneis ‘Romans’ wit- nesses that innovation no. 2 is a necessary intermediary step and no. 3 must have happened after the initial acquaintance of the Germanic speaking peoples with Latin. The source word, Lat. rōmānī, has had its ō rendered as an ū (probably because innovation no. 2 caused absence of ō in the vowel system of the target language) and its ā rendered as an ō (proba- bly because the word was borrowed at a time prior to innovation no. 3) (Noreen 1894: 11– 12; Ringe 2017: 171; contested by Stifter 2009: 270–3). 5 The exact conditioning is still debated, most likely involving either adjacency to laryngeals (Hoffmann 1976: 651; Jasanoff 1978; Rasmussen 1999 [1990]) or pretonic position (Kluge 1879: 128; Kroonen 2013: xxxviii–xl); see also §3.4. 6 In addition to these three subsystems, we find some mixed verbs (e.g. PGmc. *welja- ‘will’, pret. *wa/ul-þ-; *werkja- ‘work’, pret. *wurh-t-) and a handful of irregular verbs. 4 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen
• non-ablauting “weak verbs” with present stems of varying sources (different sources for different classes of weak verbs) and preterite stems formed with a suf- fix containing a dental consonant, most often in the form of reflexes of PGmc. *-ð- (preterite singular) or *-ðēð- (preterite plural and optative), e.g. Goth. háus-j-an ‘hear’, háus-i-da ‘I/he heard’, háus-i-dedum ‘we heard’ • “preterite-present verbs” where the present stem is formed as the preterite stem of the strong verbs and the preterite stem as the preterite stem of the weak verbs, e.g. Goth. kann ‘I/he can’, kunn-um ‘we can’, kun-þa ‘I/he could’ (see also §5.3) Although most of the building blocks of this verbal system are reflected in other Indo- European languages and can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European elements and processes, their regrammation and reparadigmatisation7 into a coherent system is a purely Germanic innovation. So is one of the building blocks: the dental suffix found in the preterite stem of the weak verbs. Although we may be able to identify the ele- ments of which this suffix is formed (Krahe 1967: 124–6; Meid 1971: 107–11; Ras- mussen 1996; Ringe 2017: 191–4; differently Lühr 1984; Kortlandt 1989), its final form and function remain exclusively Germanic. The system of strong and weak adjectives (Ringe 2017: 313–15) constitutes a sec- ond regrammation of inherited building blocks that is highly characteristic for Ger- manic. Continuing PIE a-/ō- (or ja-/jō-, i-, u-) and n-stems, respectively, they are not innovations formally speaking. However, the regrammation and reparadigmatisation of the function of these nominal stems (see Table 1) is surely innovative, as is the in- trusion of pronominal endings in some of the forms in the strong-adjective paradigm.
Content modifier of noun phrases (adjec- individualising or characteris- tive) > modifier of non-definite ing noun > modifier of definite noun phrases noun phrases Expres- reflexes of PIE a-/ō- (or ja-/jō-, i-, reflexes of the PIE n-stem type sion u-) adjectival stems (= strong adj.) (= weak adj.) Table 1: Adjectival definiteness
Third, even if the process of inserting a homorganic anaptyctic vowel between a glide and a preceding heavy syllable, known as Sievers’ Law, may in principle be shared with languages of other Indo-European branches, e.g. Indo-Iranian and Greek, the ex- act phonologisation processes differ in these languages. Furthermore, the subsequent paradigmatisation of its output into different verbal conjugations (jan- and ijan- verbs) and nominal declension classes (ja-/jō- and ija-/ijō-stems) is certainly exclu- sively Germanic (Barber 2013; Ringe 2017: 18–19, 143–7). Fourth, degrammation or, in particular, deflection is a phenomenon often associ- ated with the Germanic branch. Many of the inflectional categories reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European have been lost in Germanic, at least at the structural level, e.g. the aspectual system (including the imperfect and the aorist) and the subjunctive
7 For the terminology of grammation, regrammation and degrammation and the connections between grammaticalisation and paradigmatisation, see Andersen 2006; 2010: 123; Nørgård-Sørensen & Heltoft 2015. 9. Germanic 5 mood (Ringe 2017: 177, 182–6). Others are on the verge of being lost, e.g. the medi- opassive, the dual and the vocative, ablative, locative and instrumental cases. Having arisen independently in the Germanic languages after the breakup of Proto-Germanic, however, these latter deflectional processes do not characterise Germanic as such. For instance, the vocative case is still attested residually in Gothic, likewise the instrumen- tal in Old High German, Old Saxon and Old English, and even though the original abla- tive suffix is generally regrammated into a deadjectival adverbial suffix, Early Runic may still display one instance of a noun in the ablative with ablatival function (Hansen 2016: 10–16). As for the mediopassive, a reduced system with synthetic mediopassive forms only in the present-tense system and with a common form for the plural still exists in Gothic, but the remaining Germanic languages only have a couple of remnants such as OIcel. heiti, OE hātte ‘am/is called’ (Krahe 1967: 111–13). Thus, the linguistic structures that would trigger such deflectional processes may very well have been present in Proto-Germanic, but the processes themselves occurred individually. That we must view deflection in Germanic as a process that stretches over several centuries and millennia becomes even more evident when we consider that, in some areas of morphology, this deflectional process is still active. The ongoing reduction of case inflection in modern Danish is a perfect example of this (Heltoft & Hansen 2011: 438–9). We may regard this reduction as a mere continuation of the overall process of regrammation of morphologically marked case distinctions into partly definiteness distinctions (morphology; see Heltoft 2010; Petersen 2018) and partly topological distinctions (syntax; see Hansen forthc. a) that has operated in Danish since, at least, mediaeval times (Heltoft 2010; Jensen 2011; Petersen 2018; Hansen 2021; forthc. a; forthc. b). This process, in turn, just continues the general Germanic case reductions. As we have now seen, only a couple of the many morphological innovations actually serve to define Germanic as a branch, for even though morphology is indeed the most salient linguistic level when it comes to defining common innovations in cladistic studies (see ch. 2 §XX), the mere loss of original morphosyntactic distinctions (de- grammation) is not a defining factor in itself. Losses can happen everywhere. Only when new material comes into play as morphosyntax (grammation), or old morpho- syntactic distinctions are reanalysed with new functions or new interfaces (regram- mation), do we actually have a morphosyntactic innovation that reveals a creative pro- cess of diagnostic value to cladistic studies.
2.3 Lexicon
Like the other Indo-European branches, Germanic possesses a wide array of words without extra-cladistic comparanda, i.e., words that were, in all likelihood, coined in Germanic after its off-branching. Examples include many words formed by means of productive derivational suffixes such as PGmc. *-ila-, -iþō- and *-dūd-. Insofar as such words are shared only among the languages that we classify as Germanic (and ideally among representatives of all potential subbranches of Germanic; see §3), they con- tribute to establishing Germanic as a separate branch. However, due to the high level of adaptability and readiness for change of lexicon, lexical innovations constitute the least reliable means for establishing linguistic clades (see ch. 2 §XX). 6 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen
3 The internal structure of Germanic
Most scholars have agreed for centuries that we may group the Germanic languages into three subbranches (Schleicher 1860; Streitberg 1896; Hirt 1931; etc.). • East Germanic: the long-extinct Gothic language and several other languages, like- wise long-extinct, of which we have no or only little proof apart from toponyms and ancient authors’ descriptions of tribal names, e.g. Vandalic and Burgundian • North Germanic: the modern-day Nordic languages Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, Elfdalian, Gutnish and Danish and their immediate predecessors as well as the now-extinct language varieties of Norn • West Germanic:8 English, Frisian (West, East and North), Dutch, Afrikaans, Yid- disch, Low German, High German and their various dialects and predecessors
3.1 East Germanic
Linguistic traits and developments specific for East Germanic include, within the realm of phonology, the raising of PGmc. *ǣ to ē (Goth. mena /mēna/ ‘moon’ ~ OIcel. máni, OHG māno), the devoicing of word-final PGmc. *-z > -s (Goth. fisks ‘fish’ ~ OIcel. fiskr, OHG fisc), the development of word-final PGmc. *-ō > -a (neuter a-stem nom./acc.pl. Goth. -a ~ ER -u, OIcel. -∅ᵘ,9 OHG -u/-∅) and the absence of a-, i- and u- mutation (Goth. wulfs ‘wolf’ ~ OHG wolf; Goth. gasts ‘guest’ ~ OIcel. gestr, OE ġiest). Within the realm of morphology, innovations include the paradigmatic levelling of the results of Verner’s Law (see §2.1) in the inflection of strong verbs in favour of the unvoiced variant (Goth. waírþan–warþ–waúrþum–waúrþans ‘become’ ~ OE weorþan–wearþ–wurdon–worden) and the creation of a deictic demonstrative pro- noun Goth. sah ‘this’ (with -h < PIE *-kʷe ‘and’). We also see several instances of re- tention, e.g. of the reduplication in the preterite of reduplicated strong verbs (Goth. háitan–haíháit–haíháitum–háitans ‘call’), of four classes of weak verbs and partially of the grammatical categories of dual and mediopassive in the inflection of verbs.
3.2 North Germanic
If we turn to North Germanic (Nielsen 2000: 255–65), some of the most salient of the many phonological innovations include the loss of word-initial PGmc. *j- (OIcel. ungr ‘young’ ~ Goth. juggs /jungs/, OHG jung) and of word-initial *w- before rounded vow- els (OIcel. ulfr ‘wolf’ ~ Goth. wulfs, OHG wolf), the assimilation of PGmc. *-ht- > -tt- (OIcel. nótt, nátt ‘night’ ~ Goth. nahts, OHG naht), the loss of word-final nasals (OIcel. bera ‘to carry’ ~ Goth. baíran), the rise of i- and u-mutation with subsequent syncope or shortening of the mutation-causing unstressed vowel (PGmc. *gastiz ‘guest’ > OIcel. gestr ~ Goth. gasts)10 and the breaking of stressed PGmc. *e > ja and jǫ when
8 Scholars like Robinson (1992: 11–12), Nielsen (2000) and Bousquette & Salmons (2017: 389) express minor reservations concerning the unity of the West Germanic branch. 9 The superscript u signifies u-mutation on the vowels of the preceding syllable(s). 10 Similar, though not entirely identical, processes have taken place in the West Germanic lan- guages (see §3.3). 9. Germanic 7 the following syllable contained a and u prior to the aforementioned syncope, respec- tively (OIcel. jafn ‘even, equal’ ~ Goth. ibns ‘even, level, flat’, OHG eban ‘even, equal’; OIcel. jǫrð ‘earth, soil’ ~ Goth. aírþa /irþa/, OHG erda). On the morphological level, most of the traits that characterise North Germanic consider loss of some of the grammatical categories (and even one derivational cate- gory) that were preserved elsewhere, e.g., prefixes, the instrumental case (preserved in West Germanic and peripherally in East Germanic) or the dual and the mediopas- sive in the inflection of verbs (preserved partially in Gothic). Others are true innova- tions such as the creation of a new personal pronoun in the third person (OIcel. hann ‘he’, hon ‘she’), the replacement of the pres.3sg. ending -þ with the pres.2.sg. ending -ʀ > -r and the grammaticalisation of verbs plus reflexive pronouns into a new passive voice (PGmc. *kallō mik ‘I call myself’ → OIcel. kǫllumk ‘I am called’; OIcel. kallar sik ‘he calls himself’ → kallask ‘he is called’) (Wisén 1883: 381).
3.3 West Germanic
The traits and developments that justify the assumption of a West Germanic unity (Nielsen 2000: 241–7) include several phonological innovations shared with North Germanic (see §3.4). Others are not shared with North Germanic, e.g. the gemination of all consonants but r in front of *j (PGmc. *hafja- ‘hold up, bear up, lift’ > OE hebban, OS hebbian, OHG heffen ~ Goth. hafjan, OIcel. hefja) (Krahe 1966: 95–6)11 , the incon- sistent gemination of obstruents in front or *r and *l (PGmc. *bitra- ‘sharp, bitter’ > OE bit(t)or, OS, OHG bittar; PGmc. *apla- ‘apple’ > OE æpl, appel, OS appul, OHG apful, apfel), the rise of i-mutation with subsequent partial syncope or shortening of the mu- tation-causing unstressed vowel (PGmc. *gastiz ‘guest’ > OE ġiest ~ Goth. gasts)12 and the loss of word-final PGmc. -z in unstressed syllables prior to its merger with regular r (PGmc. *fiskaz ‘fish’ > OHG fisc ~ Goth. fisks, OIcel. fiskr). The replacement of the original strong-verb pret.2sg. ending (formed by adding -t to the preterite singular stem) with a new one (formed by adding -i to the preterite plural stem) (OHG bāri ‘you carried’ ~ Goth. bart, OIcel. bart) (Krahe 1967: 100–3), the creation of an inflected infinitive also known by the name of gerund (OHG beranne (dat.) ‘to bear’) (Krahe 1967: 113) and the retention of reflexes of the irregular verbs PGmc. *dō- ‘do’, PWGmc. *gā- ‘go’ and *stā-13 ‘stand’ (Krahe 1967: 137–40) constitute some of the most salient arguments from the realm of morphology.
3.4 Intermediary subgroupings
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to delve into the further subbranching of these three main subbranches of Germanic, for which we refer to seminal works such as Nielsen (2000) instead. Rather, we shall discuss whether these three subbranches
11 North Germanic also geminates k and g in front of j (PGmc. *legja- > OIcel. liggja ‘lie’), but the West Germanic process applies to a much broader range of cases. 12 Attested earlier in English (and Frisian) than in High and Low German (Krahe 1966: 59). 13 PWGmc. *stā- ← *stō- (< PIE *stā- < *steh₂-) by analogy with *gā- (< PIE *ǵʰē- < *ǵʰeh₁-). 8 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen arose simultaneously through one single ternary split or came into being through se- quences of binary splits. In order to establish this, we must decide if any two branches share (preferably non-trivial) phonological and morphological innovations that can- not have arisen separately in each branch. Of the three possible combinations that could theoretically have existed (East vs. North-West Germanic, North vs. East-West Germanic and West vs. East-North Ger- manic) in the case of sequences of binary splits, we may easily discard the second one. Aside from the use of the derivational suffix PGmc. *-Vssu- (Goth. -(in)assus, OHG - (n)issi) for forming abstract nouns, East and West Germanic share no linguistic inno- vations that are not also shared by North Germanic and thus do not belong to the Proto-Germanic period. The remaining linguistic traits shared only by East and West Germanic all constitute shared archaisms and are thus by no means diagnostic. The assumption of another of the constellations, that of an initial binary split into North-East Germanic and West Germanic, gained some popularity among Germani- cists in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s (Maurer 1942; Schwarz 1951; Rösel 1962; Lehmann 1966: 14–19; etc.) under the name Gotho-Norse theory. This split is sup- ported by four (Schwarz 1951: 144–8) or five (Maurer 1952: 67–8) shared innova- tions, of which only one may hold any diagnostic potential in a subbranching discus- sion: the Verschärfung (i.e., occlusification) of PGmc. *-jj- and *-ww- (arisen through Holtzmann’s Law; see §2.1) > Goth. ddj, OIcel. ggj and Goth. ggw, OIcel. ggv, respec- tively, as opposed to the non-Verschärfung of these geminates in West Germanic where a mere *-j- and *-w- continue PGmc. *-jj- and *-ww- (Goth. twaddje ‘two’ (gen.), OIcel. tveggja ~ OHG zweio; Goth. triggws ‘trustworthy’, OIcel. tryggr ‘trustworthy, faithful’ ~ OHG triwi). At first sight, this phonological innovation indeed seems highly non-trivial, thus supporting the Gotho-Norse theory. However, as Rasmussen (1999 [1990]: 383–4) demonstrates, the Verschärfung process may actually have been initi- ated already in Proto-Germanic. Building on Hoffmann’s (1976: 651) and Jasanoff’s (1978) claim that the Proto-Germanic geminates *-jj- and *-ww- reflect Proto-Indo- European clusters of semivowel plus consonantal laryngeal, i.e. PIE *-i̯H- and *-u̯H-, he suggests that these clusters were actually not geminated semivowels but rather combinations of a consonantal laryngeal (*ɣ) surrounded by semivowels, i.e. PGmc. *-jɣj- and *-wɣw-. While these sequences were further sharpened (verschärft) as a natural process independently in North and East Germanic, they were weakened in West Germanic in an equally natural process. Rasmussen finds supporting evidence for this weakening in Kluge’s (1913: 75) discovery that West Germanic eliminates a morphologically expected velar element in the sequence *-jg-j- [jɣj] < PIE *-i̯k-i̯-´ or *-i̯gʰ-i̯- (OHG reia ‘female roe’, OE rǣġe/ rǣje/ < PGmc. raig* -jō-14). It would thus seem that West Germanic has undergone a process of “Entschärfung” affecting both the re- flexes of PIE *-i̯H- and *-u̯H- and examples such as OHG reia, OE rǣġe. Even if one neither accepts laryngeals as part of the Proto-Indo-European input to the Verschärfung conditions (e.g. Kroonen 2013: xxxix–xl), nor a process of West Ger- manic “Entschärfung”, this does not necessitate the assumption of a shared East and North Germanic innovation. Early Runic evidence (ER niuwila, 5th century AD) and an early loan into Finnic (kuva ‘picture’ ← PGmc. *skuwwō-) demonstrate that a fully
14 The female counterpart of PGmc. *raiha(n)- ‘roe’ (> OHG rēh, rēho, OE rā, rāha). 9. Germanic 9 developed Verschärfung with occlusification to a plosive g(g) or a fricative ɣ was not present in the earliest post-Proto-Germanic stages and must therefore have arisen separately and independently in North and East Germanic (Marchand 1973: 87; Voyles 1992: 25–6; Petersen 2002: 8–10 with some reservations). In addition, alt- hough seemingly non-trivial, the phonological development of Verschärfung finds an approximate parallel in Faroese where *-i(j)- and *-u(v)-, originally arisen as hiatus breakers between vowels, have developed into ggj and g(g)v, respectively (OIcel. eyjar ‘islands’ > Far. oyggjar; OIcel. róa ‘row’ > Far. rógva) (Árnason 2011: 31–3). Thus, this phonological development, which may at first sight have seemed non-trivial, is if not trivial, then at least not unparallelled. We finally turn to the possibility of a North-West Germanic unity as opposed to East Germanic. A considerable number of linguistic innovations have taken place in both North and West, but not in East Germanic. Some of these are trivial phonological in- novations, the lowering of PGmc. *ǣ to *ā (OIcel. máni ‘moon’ ~ Goth. mena, OHG māno), the development of word-final PGmc. *-ō (via ER -u) > -∅ᵘ (neuter a-stem nom./acc.pl. OIcel. -∅ᵘ, OHG -∅/-u ~ Goth. -a), the rise of a-mutation (PGmc. *hurna- ‘horn’ > OIcel. horn, OHG horn)15 and even the rhotacism of PGmc. *z (> ʀ) > r (PGmc. *maizan- ‘more’ > OIcel. meiri, OE māra) (Kümmel 2007: 80–1). However, these aside, we may not reasonably label as trivial the morphological developments of creating a new deictic demonstrative pronoun by adding the enclitic particle *-si to the inherited demonstrative pronoun (RDa. sasi /sāsi/ ‘this’, OHG dese) (Krahe 1967: 64–6) and of replacing reduplication in strong verbs with the root vowel PGmc. *-ea- ~ *-ia- also known as *ē² (OIcel. lét, OHG liaz ‘let’ ~ Goth. laílot). The latter process in particular consists of so many phonological and analogical subprocesses that it would be incon- ceivable to claim independent developments in North and West Germanic. In addition, although many of the remaining shared innovations may indeed be trivial, the sheer number of instances in itself suggests a period of North-West Germanic unity. So far, we have not included evidence from Early Runic in the discussion. Nielsen (2000: 77–202, 271–98, esp. 287–93) compares all linguistic traits found in this lan- guage to those of the three Germanic subbranches and argues convincingly on that basis that it finds its closest relationship with the North Germanic branch, since only the North Germanic system of unaccented vowels harks back to Early Runic. Its sec- ond-closest affinities are with the North-Sea Germanic part of West Germanic (Old English, Old Frisian and partially Old Saxon), which may hark back to Early Runic in all other regards than its system of unaccented vowels. Thus, Nielsen does not go as far as Antonsen (1975: 26–8), who suggests that Early Runic equals a North Ger- manic/North-Sea Germanic linguistic stage labelled ‘Northwest Germanic’. Such de-
15 Crimean Gothic forms like reghen ‘rain and boga ‘arch; bow’ seem to suggest that parts of East Germanic partook in the process of a-mutation (Nielsen 1981: 296), thereby project- ing this development back to Proto-Germanic times. The absence of short e and o in Gothic words whose North and West Germanic cognates have undergone a-mutation could then be due to the general Gothic merger of PGmc. *i and *e into *i along with an unverifiable, but structurally expected merger of PGmc. *u and *o into *u. However, the circumstances concerning the transmission and attestation of the Crimean Gothic material is too uncer- tain for these considerations to hold any decisive value. 10 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen tails aside, Early Runic still partake in all the phonological and morphological innova- tions common to both North and West Germanic, e.g. the lowering of PGmc. *ǣ to ā (ER maridai /māridē/ ‘proclaimed’ < PGmc. *mǣri-) and the raising of word-final PGmc. *-ō to *-ū (ER gibu ‘I give’ < PGmc. *gebō), but none of those specific to East Germanic. From this, we may safely infer that, by the time of the earliest attestations of Early Runic in the 2nd century AD, the East Germanic branch had (long?) split off from the Germanic unity, and what was eventually to develop into the North and the West Germanic languages had only just begun splitting up. On a final note, we shall return to the Verschärfung process. It is indeed true that the nature of Early Runic and the high number of trivial and non-trivial innovations common to North and West Germanic point in the direction of a North-West Germanic intermediary subbranch prior to the final establishment of the three independent subbranches. However, if the language varieties that would develop into the three Ger- manic subbranches once coexisted in a common dialect continuum, nothing prevents East and North Germanic from having shared innovations such as the Verschärfung at an even earlier point in time. In a unified tree-wave model (Kroonen XXXX), the initial split of Proto-Germanic is defined by the first innovation (i.e., the Verschärfung) not shared by all its descendants, because it did not reach the entire dialect continuum. Between this initial split and the final split, which defines the exit of a dialect from the dialect continuum and thus the establishment of a separate subbranch, all the innova- tions common to North and West, but not East Germanic could have taken place. In sum, two credible models for the disintegration of Germanic present themselves. Either we must follow, e.g., Rasmussen (1999 [1990]) in dismissing Verschärfung as a common North-East Germanic innovation, or we must assume the existence of a Germanic dialect continuum as per Kroonen (XXXX) in which North Germanic could have shared innovations with first East, then West Germanic prior to the final split.
4 Relationship of Germanic to the other branches
Just like Germanic split into three subbranches (see §3), it must itself have split off from Proto-Indo-European at a given point. Beyond the early divergence of the Ana- tolian and Tocharian branches (see ch. 5–6), the relative order of the disintegration of Proto-Indo-European is difficult to establish. To establish the sequence of the splits leading to Germanic, we must focus on defining with which other branches Germanic shares diagnostic linguistic traits, i.e., most preferably non-trivial shared innovations from the realms of phonology and especially morphology (see ch. 2 §XX). One possibly high-node innovation that Germanic shares with several other branches (Italic, Celtic, Hellenic and maybe Tocharian; see Krahe 1966: 11–12; Fort- son 2010: 58–9, 403) is the merger of Proto-Indo-European palatovelar and plain ve- lar plosives into plain velar plosives (PIE *(d)ḱm̥tóm ‘100’ > PGmc. *hunda-, Lat. cen- tum, OIr. cét, Gr. ἑκατόν). This group of languages commonly goes by the name of cen- tum languages after the Latin word for ‘100’. In contrast, the satem languages (Indo- Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic and maybe Albanian; see Fortson 2010: 59) merge Proto-Indo-European labiovelar and plain velar plosives into plain velar plosives, keep 9. Germanic 11 the palatovelar plosives distinct and develop these further into sibilants (PIE *(d)ḱm̥tóm ‘100’ > Skt. śatám, Av. satəm, Lith. šim̃tas, OCS sъto). The geographical distribution of centum and satem branches indicates, however, that only the latter group was truly linguistically innovative. The satem innovations spread concentrically outwards in and from the centre of the Indo-European language area (Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic) but did not reach those parts that lay furthest to the west (Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Hellenic) and the east (Tocharian). The branches of those pe- ripheral areas thus merely reflect the original situation with the sole exception of a trivial merger of palatovelars and plain velars that could easily have happened sepa- rately and independently in each branch and, at any rate, must have happened inde- pendently in Tocharian vis-à-vis the western centum branches. The centum-satem distinction aside, scholars have suggested close phylogenetic relationships between Germanic and a range of other languages. The most frequent suggestions set up a Germano-Italo-Celtic unity (Meillet 1984: 131–2; Porzig 1954: 213) or, less frequently, a Germano-Balto-Slavic unity (Schleicher 1853: 787; Stang 1972; partially Meillet 1984: 132 and Porzig 1954: 214). Other scholars venture into greater groupings such as an “alteuropäisch” group consisting of Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Baltic and possibly Slavic (Krahe 1954: 48–63; 1962: 287–8; 1966: 13–14; modified by Schmid 1968) and postulated primarily on the basis of hy- dronymic evidence or a general “central” group consisting of Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Greek and probably Albanian (Ringe 2017: 6–7). In §§4.1–7, we shall go through the branches with which Germanic is exclusive in sharing specific linguistic features.
4.1 Italic
Apart from a vast number of lexical innovations, some of which are also shared with Celtic (e.g. Goth. munþs ‘mouth’ ~ Lat. mentum ‘cheek’, W mant ‘jaw’; Goth. gamáins ‘common’ ~ Lat. commūnis; Goth. hals ‘neck’ ~ Lat. collus), Germanic shares a handful of innovative phonological and morphological features with Italic (Porzig 1954: 106– 17, 123–7; Krahe 1966: 15–17, 20–1). First among the shared Germano-Italic phonological innovations is the develop- ment of PIE *-TT- > *-ss- (e.g. pre-PGmc. *u̯id-(dʰi)dʰeh₁-t > PGmc. *wissē(þ) ‘he knew’; PIE *sed-tó- > Lat. sessus ‘seated, sitting’), which may also have been shared with Celtic (Meillet 1984: 57–61; Porzig 1954: 76–8). Second comes the back-vowel quality of the vowel developed in front of Proto-Indo-European syllabic liquids (PIE *r̥ , *l̥ > Lat. or, ol, Goth. ur, ul). The remaining relevant innovations are morphological. Germanic and Italic show a great level of conformity as regards both the present-stem formation and the func- tion of derived factitive verbs in PIE *-eh₂-i̯e- (Germanic class II weak verbs ~ Latin 1st conjugation) and stative verbs in PIE *-eh₁-i̯e- (Germanic class III weak verbs ~ part of the Latin 2nd conjugation, e.g. OHG dagēn ‘be silent’ ~ Lat. tacēre). Within the realm of numeral and adverbial word formation, Germanic and Italic share no less than three innovative derivative suffixes with identical meanings: the creation of dis- tributive numerals from multiplication adverbs by means of the suffix post-PIE *-no- 12 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen
(*du̯is-no- ‘double, of two times > OIcel. tvennr ‘double’, Lat. bīnī ‘two by two) and the creation of ablatival local adverbs in post-PIE *-tr-ōd (Goth. ūtaþro ‘from outside’; hwaþro ‘from where’; Lat. ultrō ‘beyond, afar, away, off’; Osc. contrud ‘against’) and *- nē (Goth. ūtana ‘from outside’; Lat. supernē ‘from above’), respectively. To the extent that Venetic can be proved to constitute a separate Italic subbranch rather than an independent Indo-European branch (see ch. 7 §XX), we note two pos- sible innovations of Germanic shared with Venetic in this chapter (Porzig 1954: 128; Krahe 1966: 17–18): the addition of post-PIE *g to the 1sg.acc. of the personal pro- noun PIE *me ̆ ‘me’ due to analogy with the 1sg.nom. *eǵ- ‘I’ (e.g. Goth. mik ‘me’, Ven. meχo modelled after Goth. ik ‘I’, Ven. eχo) and the creation of an identity pronoun post- PIE *selbo- ‘self’ (Goth. silba, Ven. sselb-). However, the mere fact that these two Ger- mano-Venetic innovations are not shared with all Italic subbranches strongly suggests that they either must be independent innovations in Germanic and Venetic or result from convergence between Germanic and Venetic after the initial breakup of Italic.16 In a similar vein, granted an Italo-Celtic cladistic node (see ch. 7 §XX), the non- participation of Celtic in the Germano-Italic innovations poses serious challenges to the assumption of such a subbranch and suggests that these innovations must rather result from secondary convergence after the breakup of Italo-Celtic.
4.2 Celtic
No doubt remains that Germanic and Celtic had a long period of intensive contact (Porzig 1954: 118–27; Krahe 1966: 18–20; Bousquette & Salmons 2017: 390). The high number of lexical innovations shared by these two branches and concentrated in certain semantic domains such as religion and warfare serve as solid evidence thereof. For instance, the existence of nine shared lexical items for different types of ‘wound, injury, defect’ (e.g. W gwanu ‘pierce, thrust, stab’ ~ Goth. wunds ‘wound’; OIr. cáech ‘one-eyed’ ~ Goth. háihs ‘one-eyed’; see Hyllested 2009: 117–8, 122) points in the di- rection of a period of some kind of shared dialectal development, whether that be due to common development or convergence. So do a number of indisputable borrowings from Celtic into Germanic, e.g. PIE *h₃rēǵ- ‘king’ > PCelt. *rīg- → PGmc. *rīk-; PCelt. *le.agi- ‘leech’ → PGmc. *lēkja- (Schmidt 1986: 238). However, it is often difficult to decide whether a given Germano-Celticism is a shared innovation (or archaism) or reflects a loanword relationship in either direction as exemplified by PIE *h₃reǵ-tu- > PCelt. *rextu-, PGmc. *rehtu- ‘justice’ (Schmidt 1984; 1986; Hyllested 2009: 107). Notwithstanding the quantity of these lexical isoglosses or their quality for recon- structing a period of Germano-Celtic neighbourhood and convergence, they remain lexical only. Apart from the uncertainties regarding the participation of Celtic in the
16 The existence of a similar though not quite identical analogy in the personal pronouns in Anatolian (e.g. Hitt. nom. uk ‘I’, acc. ammuk ‘me) strengthens the suspicion that at least this innovation is trivial and could have happened in multiple branches independently of each other (Porzig 1954: 191). Furthermore, the Germanic and Venetic forms have additionally been compared to Gr. ἔμεγε (cf. Whatmough 2015: 164). 9. Germanic 13 development of PIE *-TT- > *-ss- (see §4.1), Germanic shares no exclusive phonologi- cal and morphological innovations with Celtic (Porzig 1954: 123; Hyllested 2009: 108–9). The evidence for a common Germano-Celtic branch is therefore scanty.
4.3 Illyrian, Messapic and the remaining Balkanic branches
As with both Italic and Celtic, the vast majority of shared innovations between Ger- manic on the one hand and Illyrian and Messapic on the other are lexical, e.g. Goth. þiudans ‘king’ ~ Illyr. Teutana (personal name), but a couple of morphological inno- vations exists, as well (Porzig 1954: 127–31; Krahe 1966: 18). Only with Illyrian does Germanic share the generalisation of the ō-grade in the declension of feminine n- stems (Goth. nom.sg. tuggo /tungō/, gen.sg. tuggons /tungōns/ ‘tongue’ ~ Illyr. nom.sg. Aplo, gen.sg. Aplōnis (personal name)).17 The formation of possessive pro- nouns with the suffix *-no- attached to the locative of the personal pronouns is shared with Messapic (e.g. post-PIE *su̯ei̯no- ‘his, her’ > Goth. seins, Messap. veinan (acc.)). Shared innovations between Germanic and the remaining Balkanic branches of Thracian, Albanian and Hellenic are limited to a handful of lexical correspondences, most of which are also shared with Illyrian (Porzig 1954: 138–9). The only exceptions are the Germanic and Thracian-Albanian phonological development of PIE *sr > str, which is, however, also shared with Illyrian, Brythonic, Slavic and partly Baltic (e.g. OIcel. straumr ‘stream’ ~ Thrac. Στρύμων (river name), Illyr. Stravianae, Strevintia (place names), Lith. strove ̃ ’stream’, OCS struja; see Porzig 1954: 78–9; Krahe 1966: 22), and the Germanic and Albanian merger of PIE *a and *o into *a, which may also be shared with Balto-Slavic (Meillet 1984: 54–6; see also §4.4). However, the insertion of a homorganic plosive in the cluster sr is such a trivial and phonetically expected development that it need not reflect anything but separate and independent innova- tions in the branches mentioned. The same goes for the merger of PIE *a and *o.
4.4 Balto-Slavic
Most of the innovations shared between Germanic and Balto-Slavic are lexical (e.g. PGmc. *darjan- ‘to hurt’ ~ Lith. dùrti ‘to stab, prick, ache’; see also Stang 1972 and Nepokupnyj 1989). Four major exceptions from the realm of phonology and morphol- ogy come to mind, though (Porzig 1954: 139–47; Krahe 1966: 21–2). First, and most famously, Germanic and Balto-Slavic agree in forming the dative and instrumental plural with a suffix reflecting a PIE *-m- rather than the *-bʰ- found in the remaining Indo-European branches that continue these endings (PGmc. dat.pl. *-imiz as per the Germanic theonyms Aflims and Vatvims in Roman inscriptions, Lith. dat.pl. -ms, instr.pl. -mis, OCS dat.pl. -mŭ, instr.pl. -mi ~ Skt. dat./abl.pl. -bhyaḥ, instr.pl. -bhiḥ, Lat. dat./abl.pl. -bus, Gaul. dat.pl. -bo, Gr. instr.pl. -φι; see also Porzig 1954: 90– 1). A recent study by Adams (2016: 19–22) indicates that Tocharian belongs to the m- group, its ablative ending Тоch.B -meṃ reflecting pre-Toch. *-mons, i.e., the PIE dat./abl.pl. *-mos with *n inserted analogically from the acc.pl. as in OPru. -mans. To
17 As opposed to the retention of ablaut in the declension of masculine n-stems (Goth. nom.sg. atta, gen.sg. attins ‘father’ ~ Illyr. nom.sg. Aplo, gen.sg. Aplinis (personal name)). 14 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen
Olander (2015: 269–70), the *m of Germanic and Balto-Slavic (and Tocharian) repre- sents a phonological innovation, i.e., a sound law PIE *-bʰi̯- > post-PIE *-m-. Other scholars, however, regard the m-cases as archaic rather than innovative in the sense that they see the *m/bʰ isogloss as the result of different selections from an original distribution between a dative/ablative plural in *m and an instrumental plural in *bʰ (Hirt 1895; Beekes 2011: 188; see also ch. 14 §7).18 Second, the Germanic and Baltic method of forming some of the numerals resemble each other strongly. The numerals ‘11’ and ‘12’ are formed in a highly non-trivial way by means of compounding the numerals for ‘1’ and ‘2’ with the reflex of an element PIE *-likʷo- (Goth. -lif, Lith. -lika, i.e., Goth. ainlif ‘11’, twalif ‘12’ ~ Lith. vienúolika ‘11’, dvýlika ‘12’) of the root PIE *lei̯kʷ- ‘leave’. The meaning seems to have developed along the lines of ‘one left after counting to 10’ (11) and ‘two left after counting to 10’ (12). The third innovation is a phonological one. In both Germanic and Balto-Slavic, the inherited vowel qualities PIE *a and *o merge into *a. Seeing that the Slavic develop- ment of *а > o is demonstrably late (Meillet 1984: 54), the merger would seem un- controversial with the short vowels (e.g. PIE *poti- ‘master’ > Goth. (bruþ-)faþs ‘bridegroom’, Lith. pа̀ ts ‘husband, self’; see Meillet 1984: 54–6 and also §4.3) where it also affects Albanian.19 However, on closer inspection, the Baltic merger of *o and *a must postdate Winter’s Law. 20 The long vowels also require closer investigation. First, the merger of the long vowels only affects parts of the Germano-Balto-Slavic area, since Baltic keeps the reflexes of PIE *ā and *ō apart (PIE *steh₂- > *stā- > Lith. stóti ‘stand up’ ~ PIE *népōt- ‘grandson’ > OLith. nepuotis). Second, we must accept an intermediary stage of a merged Pre-Proto-Germanic *ā (see §2.1) that would later de- velop into PGmc. *ō. No matter how many branches the mergers of short and long PIE *a and *o into *a cover, one fact remains: both mergers represent such trivial pro- cesses of phonological change that they may just as easily have taken place separately and independently in the branches mentioned. Fourth and last, Germanic, Slavic and to some extent Baltic share the equally trivial insertion of *t into the cluster PIE *sr with Thracian, Illyrian and Brythonic (see §4.3). As a parallel to the case of shared Germano-Italic innovations that only affect the Venetic part of the Italic branch, or only the Italic part of the Italo-Celtic branch (see §4.1), the fact that Germanic shares innovations with only parts of the Balto-Slavic unity weakens the assumption of an early Germano-Balto-Slavic cladistic node. Being the sole non-trivial innovation shared by all Germanic and Balto-Slavic (and Tochar- ian?) subbranches, only the oblique cases in PIE *-m- really support such an assump- tion, though with some major potential reservations (ch. 14 §7). The remaining non- lexical innovations must or could just as easily have either happened independently
18 For a review of earlier literature on this matter, see Olander (2015: 267–8). 19 According to some scholars (e.g. Luraghi 1998: 174), the merger of short PIE *a and *o was also shared with Anatolian, but as Melchert (1993: 251) demonstrates, this merger must constitute a secondary shared innovation in Hittite, Palaic and Luwian; it did not affect Ly- cian in which PIE *o merged with *e instead of *a. In a similar vein, the existence of Brug- mann’s Law, which accounts for the different developments of short PIE *a and *o in open syllables in Indo-Iranian, witnesses that the identical merger in this branch must also have happened posterior to its separation from the remaining Indo-European branches. 20 PIE *nogw- > PBalt. *nōg- > Lith. núogas ‘naked’; not *nogʷ- > †nag- > †nāg- > Lith. †nógas. 9. Germanic 15 in each branch or arisen due to convergence at a period when Germanic, Baltic and Slavic had all developed into individual branches. Thus, it is not surprising that Pronk (ch. 14 §7) dismisses the idea of such a common Germano-Balto-Slavic node.
4.5 Armenian
The only innovation that unites Armenian and Germanic is their treatment of the Proto-Indo-European system of plosives. Both branches have undergone ‘consonant shifts’ in that they have changed the articulatory manner of the plosives in similar ways (Meillet 1984: 89–96; Porzig 1954: 80–2; see also §2.1 for an account of the Ger- manic developments). The voiced aspirates (PIE *bʰ dʰ ǵʰ gʰ gʷʰ) developed into un- aspirated voiced plosives (in Germanic interchangeable with voiced fricatives), the voiced unaspirated plosives (PIE *b d ǵ g gʷ) into unvoiced plosives and finally the unvoiced unaspirated plosives (PIE *p t ḱ k kʷ) into unvoiced aspirates. These un- voiced aspirates have been partially retained as such in Armenian (PIE *t ḱ k/kʷ > Arm. tʽ cʽ kʽ) but have developed further into fricatives in Germanic (PIE *p t ḱ/k kʷ > PGmc. *f þ h hw) and partially in Armenian, too (PIE *p > Arm. h). These developments are indeed substantial, but that does not prevent them from having occurred independently and separately in the two branches in question. For instance, as Meillet (1984: 93–6) mentions, such consonant shifts are trivial innova- tions parallelled in several other language families worldwide, e.g. Aramaic and some Bantu dialects, and Porzig (1954: 81–2) questions if the developments in Germanic and Armenian are really as parallel as they would seem to be at first glance.
4.6 Tocharian
The apparent participation of Tocharian in the group of languages that select m-vari- ants of the dative/ablative and instrumental plural of case endings (Adams 2016: 19– 22; see §4.4 for a detailed treatment) may position it firmly together with Germanic and Balto-Slavic. Other parallels between Germanic and Tocharian are limited to some lexical elements found only in these two branches or in these two branches plus a third branch, which is then mostly Balto-Slavic but sometimes Italic or Celtic instead (e.g. post-PIE *u̯ēnto- ‘wind’ > Goth. winds, Toch.A wänt, Toch.B yente, Lat. ventus, W gwynt; Porzig 1954: 97–8, 182–7).
4.7 Anatolian
Apart from allegedly both grouping together with Italic and Tocharian in expanding the function of the reflexes of the interrogative pronoun PIE *kʷo-/kʷi- into including also the function of a relative pronoun (Puhvel 1994: 318),21 Anatolian and Germanic
21 The evidence for Germanic sharing this innovation is meagre, to say the least. The Germanic languages form their primary relative pronouns in three different ways. East Germanic ap- plies the demonstrative pronoun followed by an enclitic particle -ī (Goth. sa-ei m., so-ei f., þat-ei n. ‘who, which’), North Germanic an indeclinable particle er or es with the option of 16 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen only share lexical isoglosses. Even if some among this high number of isoglosses are indeed striking and highly specialised (e.g. OIcel. herðar ’shoulder blades’ ~ Hitt. kakkartani ‘shoulder blade’; Goth. ulbandus ‘camel’ ~ Hitt. huwalpant- ‘hunchback’; Puhvel 1994: 323–4; Melchert 2016: 298–300), they remain lexical and thus less fit for cladistic purposes than phonological and in particular morphological aspects.
4.8 Non-Indo-European languages
Although evidence of influence from or on languages of non-Indo-European prove- nance cannot serve as an argument for the subgrouping of Germanic within Indo-Eu- ropean, such evidence may still reveal what language communities were neighbouring the Germanic area at certain points in history. Furthermore, if we come across pat- terns of non-Indo-European influence of the kind found in Germanic in other Indo- European branches, we may infer that these branches have been in close contact with Germanic. Certainly, that, too, does not count as proof of such branches sharing a com- mon node with Germanic in the Indo-European cladistic tree, but it may give us an indication of where to look. For that reason, some evidence of this type follows below. Feist (1932) argues that roughly one third of all Proto-Germanic lexical items orig- inate in a non-Indo-European substrate. Later research has reduced the number of lexical items claimed to be of substrate origin considerably (e.g. Kroonen 2011; 2013), yet we cannot escape the fact that some lexical items still defy etymologisation within an Indo-European perspective. A recent theory on the nature of the substrate lan- guage behind Germanic holds that the speakers of this language were the pre-Indo- European Neolithic farmers of Europe (Kroonen 2012; Iversen & Kroonen 2017: 516– 18). Unlike other substrate theories such as the Vasconic theory proposed by Venne- mann (2003), this theory builds on the presence of recurring phonological and mor- phological patterns unanalysable within the Proto-Indo-European system (Schrijver 1997: 296)22 in the lexicon of Proto-Germanic and neighbouring branches such as Italic, Celtic, Greek and Balto-Slavic, mainly within the semantic field of agriculture. Other non-Indo-European loanwords in Germanic have more tangible sources. Some lexical items have been borrowed from the Uralic languages into Germanic at different periods in time (e.g. PGmc. *hamara- ‘hammer’ ← PBF *hamara ‘back of an axe’; PGmc. *halba- ‘half’ ← PBF *halpa, halßa- ‘cheap, reduced’; see Hyllested 2014).
a preceding demonstrative pronoun and West Germanic the demonstrative pronoun alone (e.g. OE se m., sēo f., þæt n. ‘who, which’) (Krahe 1967: 68–9; see also Porzig 1954: 191). 22 Possible candidates for lexical borrowing according to these methodologically strict crite- ria have been suggested by Schrijver (1997: 297–312) himself and repeated later by, e.g., Kroonen (2012: 240). Schrijver has observed a systematic, though non-Indo-European- looking interchange of initial *a- versus initial *∅- in a number of lexically similar doublets from the European languages such as OHG amsala ‘blackbird’ ~ Lat. merula (< *mesal-) and OHG aruz ‘ore’ (< PGmc. *arut-) ~ Lat. raudus ‘lump of ore’. Here, we may further ob- serve that the lexical roots display radical zero grade when a-prefixed. Another case iden- tified already by Kuiper (1956: 217–19) is that of the suffix PGmc. *-īt- (< pre-PGmc. *-ind-) in, e.g., PGmc. *arwīt- ‘pea’ corresponding almost regularly to the “Pelasgian” suffix Gr. -ινθ- ~ -ῑδ- ~ -ῑθ- ~ -ιν- etc. found in Gr. ἐρέβινθος ‘chickpea’, λαβύρινθος ‘labyrinth’ etc.; see also Kroonen (2012: 243–4, 247–8). 9. Germanic 17
The main direction of lexical borrowings between Germanic and Uralic was, however, the other way (e.g. PGmc. *kuningaz ‘king’ ← Finn. kuningas; PGmc. *hrengaz ‘ring’ → Finn. rengas; see also Krahe 1966: 24; Kylstra et al. 1991–2012). The loanword relations that Germanic appears to have had with Uralic languages such as Proto-Balto-Finnic and long-extinct substrate languages such as Early Euro- pean Neolithic thus serve to illustrate the hardly surprising fact that Proto-Germanic was spoken in Northern Europe in the vicinity of branches such as Italic, Celtic, Balto- Slavic and non-Indo-European Balto-Finnic.
5 The position of Germanic
As we have just seen in §4, no branch offers itself as an obvious candidate for sharing a common node with Germanic in the Indo-European cladistic tree. We could of course choose to see the *-m-variant of the secondary cases (instead of *-bʰ-) (see §4.4) or the collocation of the Germanic 2nd and 3rd classes of weak verbs with the Latin 1st and 2nd conjugation (see §4.1) as compelling evidence in favour of a close relation- ship with Balto-Slavic and Tocharian or with Italic, respectively. However, these pieces of evidence obviously point in different directions, and as for the Balto-Slavic connec- tion, other pieces of evidence show shared innovations with Baltic only, not with Slavic, which indicates a period of contact and joint development between Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages during a relatively late time period and, in any event, after the initial breakup of Balto-Slavic into Baltic and Slavic. The same goes for the Ger- mano-Italic innovations that are not also shared with Celtic and thus must postdate the initial breakup of Italo-Celtic. There are, however, two linguistic arguments that can be presented in favour of a relatively early split of Germanic.
5.1 Nominal ablaut
A well-known, seemingly archaic feature of the Germanic branch is its preservation of Proto-Indo-European nominal ablaut, especially in the heteroclitics. Here we may re- call cases such as PGmc. nom. *sōel (Goth. sauil, OIcel. sól), obl. *sunn- (Goth. dat. sun- nin, OIcel. sunna, OE sunna/e, OHG sunna/o) ‘sun’ < PIE *séh₂-u̯l̥, gen. *sh₂-u̯(é)n-s and the somewhat parallel PGmc. nom. *fōr, (cf. Go. fon, OHG fuir, fiur ‘fire’), obl. fun- (Go. gen. funins) < PIE *péh₂-u̯r̥, *ph₂-u̯(é)n-s. With the exception of Anatolian (cf. Hitt. nom. paḫḫur, gen. paḫwenaš ‘fire’ < PIE *peh₂-ur, *peh₂-u̯en-os), such nominal ablaut patterns are far less well preserved in the other branches. Although vestiges of such archaic patterns exist throughout the family (Lith. vanduõ ~ Latv. udens ‘water’ < PIE *u̯(o)d-r/n- and Lat. iecur, gen. iocineris ‘liver’ < PIE *i̯e/okʷ-r/n-), Germanic is rather conservative in this respect. Additional indications for such inherited productivity in Germanic comes from a related nominal category, the n-stems. There is ample evidence for inherited ablaut patterns in this category, e.g. PIE *kréi̯t-ō, obl. *krit-n- ‘fever’ (OHG Notk. nom. rído ~ dat. riten); PIE *meh₂k-ō, obl. *mh₂k-n- ‘poppy’ (OSw. val-mōghe ~ OHG maho, mago); see further MW cryd < PIE *krito- and Gr. μήκων < PIE *meh₂k-on-. In other n-stems, 18 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen however, the ablaut appears to be decidedly secondary. A plausibly secondary full grade presents itself in, e.g., Nw. dial. jase ‘hare’ (< OIcel. *hjasi < PGmc. *hesan-) and jos ‘she-hare’ (< OIcel. *hjǫs < PGmc. *hesō-), both with regular breaking of PGmc. *e, as opposed to pan-Gmc. *hasan- ~ *hazan- (OHG haso, OE hara) and, outside Ger- manic, Skt. śáśa-, Lat. cānus (< *kasno-), MW ceinach (< *kasnī-) < PIE *ḱas-. Second- ary zero grades must in turn be assumed for PGmc. *maþō, obl. *mutt- ‘maggot, moth’ (Goth. maþa ~ OIcel. motti) and *raþō, obl. *rutt- ‘rat’ (OHG rato ~ MLG rotte), appar- ently from pre-PGmc. *mot-n- and *(H)rot-n- (Kroonen 2011: 218–23). The Indo-Eu- ropean nominal ablaut is not only preserved in the Germanic n-stems, but has in fact remained productive, whereas this productivity was lost in the other branches.
5.2 The preterite-presents
A second archaic feature of Germanic is the retention of the verbal category that is generally held to somehow correspond to the Anatolian ḫi-presents: the Germanic preterite-presents. Examples include: • PGmc. *waita–witume ‘know’ > Goth. wáit–witum, OIcel. veit–vitum, etc. • PGmc. *maga–magume ‘can’ > Goth. mag, OIcel. má–megum, etc. • PGmc. *aiha–aigume ‘own, have’ > Goth. áih–áigum, OIcel. á–eigum, etc. • PGmc. *kanna–kunnume ‘can’ > Goth. kann–kunnum, OIcel. kann–kunnum, etc. • PGmc. *mana–munume ‘think’ > Goth. man, OIcel. man–munum, etc. • PGmc. *skala–skulume ‘shall, must’ > Goth. skal, OIcel. skal–skulum, etc. • PGmc. *ga-naha–ga-nugume ‘be enough, suffice’ > Goth. ga-nah, OE ġe-neah, etc. The reconstruction of this category for Proto-Indo-European is debated, the key ques- tion being whether it was a conjugational type of its own or rather originally identical with the perfect (see Kloekhorst for a recent discussion). Within Germanic, we may simply analyse the preterite-presents as perfect deponentia, i.e., verbs with the con- jugation of the perfect, but with a presentic meaning (see §2.2). Regarding the lexical distribution of the preterite-presents, some of the verbs have parallels in the other Indo-European languages, e.g. PGmc. *magan- ~ OCS mogǫ (< PIE *mogʰ- ‘to be able’); PGmc. *aigan- ~ Skt. īś ́ e ‘to avail over’ (< PIE *h₂(o)i̯ḱ-); PGmc. *ōgan- ~ OIr. ágathar (< PIE *h₂e-h₂ogʰ- ‘to fear’), yet others are isolated to Germanic, even though they contain more widely attested verbal roots, e.g. PGmc. *kunnan- (< PIE *ǵneh₃- ‘to know’),23 *lisan- (PIE < *lei̯s- ‘to track’), *munan- (< PIE *men- ‘to think, intend’), *ga-nahan- (< PIE *Hnéḱ- ‘to reach’) and *skulan- (< PIE *skel- ‘to owe’). It is tempting to conclude, as a result, that the Germanic preterite- presents, whatever their ultimate origin, was still a productive, i.e., open verbal cate- gory at the time when Germanic split off from Proto-Indo-European. This is more rem- iniscent of the situation in Hittite, in which the ḫi-conjugation is still a fully functioning verbal category, than of the situation in the remaining Indo-European languages where it has largely disappeared and can only be traced through isolated remnants.
23 The double n of *kann- ~ *kunn- suggests that it was innovated on the basis of the neh₂- present PGmc. *kunnō- < PIE *ǵn̥h₃-neh₂-, which is well-attested outside Germanic (Toch.A knānat, Skt. jāna ́ti, YAv. -zānəṇti, OIr. ad-gnin, Lith. žinóti) and is clearly old. 9. Germanic 19
5.3 Evaluation of the evidence
Exactly how early Germanic split off is still exceedingly difficult to determine. While Germanic across the board is a highly innovative Indo-European subbranch and lost many of the Proto-Indo-European features still present in Vedic Sanskrit and Greek, the sustained productivity of 1) nominal ablaut and 2) the preterite-presents can be taken as “living fossils”. 24 If correct, they are potential indications that Germanic split off from PIE at a relatively early stage, as these features are generally lost in the non- Anatolian branches. Based on this interpretation, Germanic would have to have bro- ken off from Proto-Indo-European after Anatolian, clearly the most basal branch, and just before or after Tocharian.
References
Adams, D. Q. 2016. Morphosyntax as the handmaid of etymology: On the history of the causal and ablative case-endings in Tocharian. In B. S. S. Hansen, B. N. Whitehead, T. Olander & B. A. Olsen (eds.), Etymology and the European lexicon: Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17–22 September 2012, Copenhagen, 15–24. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Andersen, H. 2006. Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica 23 (2). 231–58. Andersen, H. 2010. From morphologization to demorphologization. In S. Luraghi & V. Bubenik (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to historical linguistics, 117–46. Lon- don: Bloomsbury. Antonsen, E. H. 1975. A concise grammar of the older runic inscriptions. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Árnason, K. 2011. The phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: OUP. Barber, P. 2013. Sievers’ law and the history of semivowel syllabicity in Indo-Euro- pean and Ancient Greek. Oxford: OUP. Beekes, R. S. P. 2011. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. 2nd ed., revised and corrected by M. de Vaan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bousquette, J., & J. Salmons. 2017. Germanic. In M. Kapović (ed.), The Indo-European languages. 2nd ed., 387–420. London & New York: Routledge. Boutkan, D. 1995. The Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Feist, S. 1932. The origin of the Germanic languages and the Europeanization of North Europe. Language 8. 245–54. Fortson, B. W., IV. 2010. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK, & Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hansen, B. S. S. 2016. Lamo talgida or talgida lamo: An indication of a paradigmatic ablative in Proto-Norse? Arkiv för nordisk filologi 131. 5–20.
24 The multiply renewed productivity of the root-noun declension type in Germanic (Hansen 2017) constitutes a third, though slightly less convincing “living fossil” of this type. 20 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen
Hansen, B. S. S. 2017. Layers of root nouns in Germanic. In B. S. S. Hansen, B. N. White- head, T. Olander & B. A. Olsen (eds.), Etymology and the European lexicon: Pro- ceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17–22 Sep- tember 2012, Copenhagen, 169–82. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hansen, B. S. S. 2021. Forgrundsinformationsnominativ eller kasusløshed: En analyse af kasussystemerne i den gammelskånske tekst Sjælens Trøst. Nydanske Sprogstudier NyS 59. 57–90. Hansen, B. S. S. Forthc. a. From case to topology: Changes in the Late Middle Danish case system and the reasons for them. North-Western European Language Evolu- tion (NOWELE) 74. Hansen, B.S.S. Forthc. b. Redundant indexicality and paradigmatic reorganisations in the Middle Danish case system. In G. Diewald & K. Politt (eds.), Paradigms re- gained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm. Berlin: Language Science Press. Hansen, E., & L. Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog. København: Det Dan- ske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Heltoft, L. 2010. Paradigmatic structure and reanalysis: from NPs to DPs in Scandina- vian. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42. 11–25. Henriksen, C., & J. van der Auwera. 1994. The Germanic languages. In E. König & J. van der Auwera (eds.), The Germanic languages, 1–18. London & New York: Routledge. Hirt, H. 1895. Über die mit -m- und -bh- gebildeten Kasussuffixe. Indogermanische Forschungen 5. 251–5. Hirt, H. 1931. Handbuch des Urgermanischen. Vol. 1. Heidelberg: Winter. Hoffmann, K. 1976. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. 2 vols., ed. by J. Narten. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hyllested, A. 2009. On the precursors of Celtic and Germanic. In S.W. Jamison, H.C. Melchert & B. Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 107–128. Bremen: Hempen. Hyllested, A. 2014. Balto-Fennic Loanwords in Proto-Germanic. In A. Hyllested, Word exchange at the gates of Europe: Five millennia of language contact, 99–107. Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen. Iversen, R., & G. Kroonen. 2017. Talking Neolithic: Linguistic and archaeological per- spectives on how Indo-European was implemented in Southern Scandinavia. American Journal of Archaeology 121. 511–25. Jasanoff, J. 1978. Observations on the Germanic Verschärfung. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 37. 77–90. Jensen, E. S. 2011. Nominativ i gammelskånsk. Afvikling og udviklinger med udgangs- punkt i Skånske Lov i Stockholm B 69. Odense: Universitets-Jubilæets danske Sam- fund & Syddansk Universitetsforlag. Kluge, F. 1879. Beiträge zur Geschichte der germanischen Conjugation (Excurs über gotisch dd und gg). Quellen und Forschungen 32. 127–30. Kluge, F. 1884. Die germanische consonantendehnung. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 9. 149–86. Kluge, F. 1913. Urgermanisch. Vorgeschichte der altgermanischen Dialekte. Strass- burg: Trübner. 9. Germanic 21
Kortlandt, F. 1989. The Germanic weak preterite. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 28. 101–9. Kortlandt, F. 1991. Kluge’s law and the rise of Proto-Germanic geminates. Amster- damer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 34. 1–4. Krahe, H. 1954. Sprache und Vorzeit. Europäische Vorgeschichte nach dem Zeugnis der Sprache. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Krahe, H. 1962. Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronomie. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Krahe, H. 1966. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Einleitung und Lautlehre. 6th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Krahe, H. 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 2. Formenlehre. 6th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kroonen, G. 2011. The Proto-Germanic n-stems. A study in diachronic morphophonol- ogy. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. Kroonen, G. 2012. Non-Indo-European root nouns in Germanic: Evidence in support of the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis. In R. Grünthal & P. Kallio (eds.), A linguis- tic map of prehistoric Northern Europe, 239–60. Helsinki: Société Finno- Ougrienne. Kroonen, G. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Kuiper, F. B. J. 1956. The etymology of ἄνθρωπος. In H. Kronasser (ed.), ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer 2. Mai 1886 – 9. März 1956 1. Wien: Verlag der Wiener Sprachgesellschaft. Kümmel, M. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwan- dels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kylstra, A. D., S. L. Hahmo, T. Hofstra & O. Nikkilä (eds.). 1991–2012. Lexikon der äl- teren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. 3 vols. Amster- dam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Lehmann, W.P. 1966. The grouping of the Germanic languages. In H. Birnbaum & J. Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European dialects: Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics held at the University of California, Los Angeles, April 25–27, 1963, 13–27. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Luraghi, S. 1998. The Anatolian languages. In A. G. Ramat & P. Ramat (eds.), The Indo- European languages, 169–96. London & New York: Routledge. Lühr, R. 1984. Reste der athematischen Konjugation in den germanischen Sprachen: zu 'sein' und 'tun'. In J. Untermann & B. Brogyanyi (eds.), Das Germanische und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Grundsprache: Akten des Freiburger Kol- loquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Freiburg 26.–27. Februar 1981, 25– 90. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lühr, R. 1988. Expressivität und Lautgesetz im Germanischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Marchand, J. 1973. The sounds and phonemes of Wulfila’s Gothic. The Hague: Mouton. Markey, T. L. 2001. A tale of two helmets: The Negau A and B inscriptions. Journal of Indo-European Studies 29: 69–172. 22 Guus Kroonen & Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen
Maurer, F. 1942. Nordgermanen und Alemannen: Studien zur germanischen und frühdeutschen Sprachgeschichte, Stammes- und Volkskunde. Straßburg: Hünen- burg. Maurer, F. 1952. Nordgermanen und Alemannen: Studien zur germanischen und frühdeutschen Sprachgeschichte, Stammes- und Volkskunde. 3. überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Bern & München: A. Francke & Leo Lehnen. Meid, W. 1971. Das germanische Präteritum: indogermanische Grundlagen und Aus- breitung im Germanischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Univer- sität Innsbruck. Meillet, A. 1984. Les dialectes indo-européens. Nouveau tirage, avec une introduction et des additions. Paris: Honoré Champion. Melchert, H. C. 1993. Historical phonology of Anatolian. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21. 237–57. Melchert, H. C. 2016. “Western affinities” of Anatolian. In B. S. S. Hansen, B. N. White- head, T. Olander & B. A. Olsen (eds.), Etymology and the European lexicon: Pro- ceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17–22 Sep- tember 2012, Copenhagen, 297–305. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Must, G. 1957. The problem of the inscription on Helmet B of Negau. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 62. 51–9. Nepokupnyj, A. P. (ed.). 1989. Obščaja leksika germanskix i baltoslavjanskix jazykov. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Nielsen, H. F. 1981. Krimgotisk: oversigt og problemstillinger. In H. F. Nielsen (ed.), Sammenlignende studier i gotisk, 283–99. Odense: Odense Universitet. Nielsen, H.F. 2000. The early runic language of Scandinavia. Studies in Germanic dia- lect geography. Heidelberg: Winter. Noreen, A. 1894. Abriss der urgermanischen Lautlehre. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die nordischen Sprachen. Zum Gebrauch bei akademischen Vorlesungen. Strass- burg: Trübner. Nørgård-Sørensen, J., & L. Heltoft. 2015. Grammaticalisation as paradigmatisation. In A. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale & R. Waltereit (eds.), New directions in grammaticali- sation research, 261–92. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Olander, T. 2015. Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology. A comparative handbook. Lei- den & Boston: Brill. Petersen, H. P. 2002. Verschärfung in Old Norse and Gothic. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 117. 5–27. Petersen, K. T. 2018. Udviklingen af inkorporation fra gammeldansk til moderne dansk. Fra umarkerede kasusformer til markeret artikelløshed og enhedstryk. Kø- benhavn: Universitets-Jubilæets danske Samfund. Pokorny, J. 2005. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1. 5. Auflage. Tübingen: Fraencke. Porzig, W. 1954. Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg: Winter. 9. Germanic 23
Puhvel, J. 1994. West-Indo-European affinities of Anatolian. In G. E. Dunkel, G. Meyer, S. Scarlata & C. Seidl (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich, 315–24. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Rasmussen, J. E. 1990. Germanic Verschärfung: Tying up loose ends. In H. Andersen & K. Koerner (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Lille 1987, 425–41. Amsterdam & Philadel- phia: Benjamins. Reprinted in J. E. Rasmussen. 1999. Selected papers, 375–93. Co- penhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Rasmussen, J. E. 1996. On the origin of the Germanic weak preterite. Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 161–8. Ringe, D. 2017. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP. Robinson, O.W. 1992. Old English and its closest relatives: A survey of the earliest Germanic languages. London: Routledge. Rösel, L. 1962. Die Gliederung der germanischen Sprachen nach dem Zeugnis ihrer Flexionsformen. Nürnberg: Carl. Schleicher, A. 1853. Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes. Allge- meine Zeitung fuer Wissenschaft und Literatur 3. 786–7. Schleicher, A. 1860. Die deutsche Sprache. Stuttgart: Cotta. Schmid, W.P. 1968. Alteuropäisch und Indogermanisch. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Aka- demie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Schmidt, K. H. 1984. Keltisch und Germanisch. In J. Untermann & B. Brogyanyi (eds.), Das Germanische und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Grundsprache: Akten des Freiburger Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Freiburg, 26.–27. Februar 1981, 113–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schmidt, K. H. 1986. Keltisch-germanische Isoglossen und ihre sprachgeschichtlichen Implikationen. In H. Beck (ed.), Germanenprobleme in heutiger Sicht, 231–47. Ber- lin & Boston: de Gruyter. Schrijver, P. 1997. Animal, vegetable and mineral: Some Western European substra- tum words. In A. Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 293–316. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Schwarz, E. 1951. Goten, Nordgermanen, Angelsachsen. Studien zur Ausgliederung der germanischen Sprachen. Bern: Francke. Stang, C. S. 1972. Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stifter, D. 2009. The Proto-Germanic shift *ā>*ō and early Germanic linguistic con- tacts. Historische Sprachforschung 122. 268–83. Streitberg, W. 1896. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Vennemann, T. 2003. Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Versloot, A. 2020. Streektaaldood in de Lage Landen. Taal en Tongval 72. 7–16. Voyles, J. B. 1992. Early Germanic grammar: Pre-, Proto-, and Post-Germanic lan- guages. San Diego: Academic Press. Wisén, Th. 1883. Om norröna medialformer på -umk i första personen singularis. Ar- kiv for nordisk filologi 1. 370–84.